It came as no surprise that I had trouble finding the "rhythm" in Leviticus, in fact, after a while the words just seemed to turn into mush on the page. I'm only on Chapter 10, playing catch up once again. Reading Leviticus does have some advantages, namely, it reminds you how ancient this book (or jumble of non-coherent books) really is. And, if you're paying attention, every once in a while something fun happens. At one point there is a curious incident in which it seems very clear that God's prophet will always be higher up in the divine hierarchy then His priests. In Leviticus chapter 8, when Aaron and his sons are being ordained, it is Moses who dominates the passages. In fact, for most of this scene, it is Moses that does all of the sacrificing, anointing, blood spraying, etc. In my mind this part stands out because many of the rules listed previous to this incident had been playing a little into priests hands, a few silver pieces here, a tasty lunch there...
Perhaps the authors knew that trying to underplay a prophets importance was a big gamble, but it just seemed odd that Aaron wasn't the one performing all the ordaining rituals, because i thought it had been established that when it came to priests he was the top dog. This entry is short because I simply don't have the brain power necessary to pull more out of Leviticus...
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
God randomly attacks Moses at night...Moses wins.
In Exodus 4.18, something rather odd happens after Moses asks his father-in-law for permission to return to Egypt to help his people leave. Jethro allows him to return, and on the trip back Moses stops to spend the night, and then a paragraph falls from heaven onto the page and completely disrupts the well formed plot. Exodus 4.24 reads, "On the way, at a place where they spent the night, the Lord [the same Lord that is helping the Israelites leave Egypt via Moses and Aaron] met him and tried to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin, and touched Moses' feet with it and said, 'Truly you are a bridegroom and of blood to me!' so he let him alone. It was then she said, 'A bridegroom of blood by circumcision.' " What?!?
I read this passage four times, each time trying to figure out what I missed, and why God suddenly decided to come down to Earth and go fisticuffs with Moses. I was rather lost, so I consulted the footnotes. "The unmotivated divine assault is made even stranger by it ambiguous use of pronouns: it remains unclear whether Moses or his son is the victim. The juxtaposition with Pharaoh's firstborn son (v.23) suggests that Moses' son may be the one at risk. The episode runs against the larger narrative sequence in which Moses has two sons." Ooooohhhhh ok. What? It seems that even the knowledgeable staff at Harper-Collins was just as confused as I was. I am not sure if this part of the narrative is a gleaming example of the documentary hypothesis, but it definitely seems like it should be. This passage also got me thinking about Frye's first chapter, and metaphor and metonymical language. I tried reading the entire section again, from 4.18 to 4.31 with these thoughts in my head, and I must admit, nothing really helped. One thing from Frye did stick however, when he said, "Perhaps, then, there is no such entity as "the Bible," and what is called "the Bible" may be only a confused and inconsistent jumble of badly established texts." (Frye, xii). We had already talked about the documentary hypothesis in class, and had already experienced it in Genesis' two creation stories, but for me, this example of a divine fist fight really drove it home. I kind of sorta hope we talk about this one in class, cause I would really like to know if anyone has any insight on this strange episode, of if I'm making a mountain out of a molehill.
I read this passage four times, each time trying to figure out what I missed, and why God suddenly decided to come down to Earth and go fisticuffs with Moses. I was rather lost, so I consulted the footnotes. "The unmotivated divine assault is made even stranger by it ambiguous use of pronouns: it remains unclear whether Moses or his son is the victim. The juxtaposition with Pharaoh's firstborn son (v.23) suggests that Moses' son may be the one at risk. The episode runs against the larger narrative sequence in which Moses has two sons." Ooooohhhhh ok. What? It seems that even the knowledgeable staff at Harper-Collins was just as confused as I was. I am not sure if this part of the narrative is a gleaming example of the documentary hypothesis, but it definitely seems like it should be. This passage also got me thinking about Frye's first chapter, and metaphor and metonymical language. I tried reading the entire section again, from 4.18 to 4.31 with these thoughts in my head, and I must admit, nothing really helped. One thing from Frye did stick however, when he said, "Perhaps, then, there is no such entity as "the Bible," and what is called "the Bible" may be only a confused and inconsistent jumble of badly established texts." (Frye, xii). We had already talked about the documentary hypothesis in class, and had already experienced it in Genesis' two creation stories, but for me, this example of a divine fist fight really drove it home. I kind of sorta hope we talk about this one in class, cause I would really like to know if anyone has any insight on this strange episode, of if I'm making a mountain out of a molehill.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Psalm 51
Psalm 51 was a nice break from Genesis (of which, yes, I am still *ahem* reading). It was like going from an old Greek epic to an early 19th century poem. At first though, so much of this "poem" seems to remind me of many of the things that I have heard about the Bible, argued over dinner with friends about, and just generally sums up a great deal of the social milieu...let me explain. So much of the discourse that follows me concerning the bible comes in the form of people knocking on my door with some great news, "God is merciful! Hooray!" Then there's always the old stand by that priests have been clinging onto for a very long time "I [and everyone else] was born guilty," so that covers your original sin. Next, in true fashion, well God can erase those sins if you ask nicely, and when he does, you can help spread the word. This was how I read Psalm 51 at first, like some hell-bent atheist who gets offended by the words "God", "Sin", "Original" and "Religion"...but that's not really me, so I figured I'd better take a second look.
When I read it again, this time with the open literary mind that I am supposed to be reading it with, well, it was good....REALLY good. The imagery was phenomenal; a man, who has just committed sin against an angry God essentially prostrates himself and delivers brilliant words. He does not simply ask for forgiveness, that would be too easy, but rather he asks "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me." For me, a non-believer, this is a great image, David is not asking for forgiveness, he is asking to be cleansed top to bottom and to have his heart replaced, talk about devotion. Another line that I had mentioned earlier, "Indeed, I was born guilty" actually turns out to have less to do with original sin, and more about the author's ability at creating hyperbolic verse to really drive home the point. David is so guilty that he feels he has been with sin for his entire life...that's guilt. And now, a drum roll, for my two favorite passages. "let the bones that you crushed rejoice" This line is, without a doubt, so insane it borders on genius (in my humble opinion), to be so convinced of the joy one can feel from God that a person's painfully mashed and crushed bones rejoice, well lets just say that's an image that won't be leaving me for awhile. My other favorite, "The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit," this seems to echo the bones line, but in a much more ethereal sense. I guess I like the idea of God as a kind of Byronic hero who wants not the best, straight laced goody two shoes he can find, but the souls that have been beaten, broken, and are flawed through sin. I realize this is not a "new" image of God, but given a choice between the God of Psalm 51 and the God of Genesis I would definitely be happy to sacrifice my broken spirit.
When I read it again, this time with the open literary mind that I am supposed to be reading it with, well, it was good....REALLY good. The imagery was phenomenal; a man, who has just committed sin against an angry God essentially prostrates himself and delivers brilliant words. He does not simply ask for forgiveness, that would be too easy, but rather he asks "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me." For me, a non-believer, this is a great image, David is not asking for forgiveness, he is asking to be cleansed top to bottom and to have his heart replaced, talk about devotion. Another line that I had mentioned earlier, "Indeed, I was born guilty" actually turns out to have less to do with original sin, and more about the author's ability at creating hyperbolic verse to really drive home the point. David is so guilty that he feels he has been with sin for his entire life...that's guilt. And now, a drum roll, for my two favorite passages. "let the bones that you crushed rejoice" This line is, without a doubt, so insane it borders on genius (in my humble opinion), to be so convinced of the joy one can feel from God that a person's painfully mashed and crushed bones rejoice, well lets just say that's an image that won't be leaving me for awhile. My other favorite, "The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit," this seems to echo the bones line, but in a much more ethereal sense. I guess I like the idea of God as a kind of Byronic hero who wants not the best, straight laced goody two shoes he can find, but the souls that have been beaten, broken, and are flawed through sin. I realize this is not a "new" image of God, but given a choice between the God of Psalm 51 and the God of Genesis I would definitely be happy to sacrifice my broken spirit.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
God's PJ's
I can't say I was shocked to learn that the bible most likely had several different authors, partially because I had heard that before, and partially because when I started reading it there were definate shifts in the narrative. What we did end up talking about in class was essentially the conclusion I had come to at home (though in class it was much more thouroughly thought out, and said with much more grace). I like the first story, from a moral stand point, and also, as i said in an earlier blog, I like the idea of God sifting through some kind of etheral goop to seperate its parts out to make the world. I like some of the inagery as well, "the Earth was a formless void, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters." The first creation story also seems to have a more ancient feel to it, especially when it comes to the creation of humans, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness" (italics added). This passage seems to suggest an author that lived in a time when heaven was still full of Gods, not one God but many. A google search containing the items "P" "J" "sources" and "bible" will reveal that many scholars do in fact feel that the Bible had several authors, working in different places, at very different times. The first creation story in Genesis was most likely written by the "J" source, a source the the world wide web tells me is much more interested in narrative and paints God in a very human like way. The P source, we are told, is much more worried about geneologies, covenants, numbers, etc and its God is much more distant and unmerciful. The P version of creation starts in Genesis 2.4.
This second version of creation, though not as "cool" in my opinion, seems more coherant, and most importantly, it sets our story up for some conflict, especially write at the end of the passage when it says "And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed." This seems to be setting up a story where the are naked and they are, in fact, ashamed by it. Also in the story is a quick reference to the trees in the garden, especially the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. There's no way that a tree containing all the knowledge of good and evil is not going to be a key factor in the plot of a story. No way. The second version also has its own very different imagery, setting it even more apart from the first. Here, God is the sculptor, as we see in, "then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground." Here, He is making men by forming everything with his hands, where in the J version God is seperating out component parts and simply issuing commands into the darkness. Also of note, youcan feel the shift in narrative just by the way that some things have been translated, in the J story God is God, yet in the P one, well He's the Lord God. Another thing about the second story that seems to make it more coherent, and just better as a device for the set up of conflict, is that the reader is told where the garden of Eden is, in a sense. It puts the plot and narrative of the story into a place that ancient and new readers alike could literally envision, and also sets up for conflicts with the peoples of the surrounding area. The second story seems to lead up to the "fall" much more than does the first one, thus I would have to deem it the "better" story, even though the first has some healthy offerings of its own in the form of imagery. Also, for anyone interested there is a NOVA program online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/program.html that will allow to watch a show about the "secrets" of the Bible for free.
This second version of creation, though not as "cool" in my opinion, seems more coherant, and most importantly, it sets our story up for some conflict, especially write at the end of the passage when it says "And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed." This seems to be setting up a story where the are naked and they are, in fact, ashamed by it. Also in the story is a quick reference to the trees in the garden, especially the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. There's no way that a tree containing all the knowledge of good and evil is not going to be a key factor in the plot of a story. No way. The second version also has its own very different imagery, setting it even more apart from the first. Here, God is the sculptor, as we see in, "then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground." Here, He is making men by forming everything with his hands, where in the J version God is seperating out component parts and simply issuing commands into the darkness. Also of note, youcan feel the shift in narrative just by the way that some things have been translated, in the J story God is God, yet in the P one, well He's the Lord God. Another thing about the second story that seems to make it more coherent, and just better as a device for the set up of conflict, is that the reader is told where the garden of Eden is, in a sense. It puts the plot and narrative of the story into a place that ancient and new readers alike could literally envision, and also sets up for conflicts with the peoples of the surrounding area. The second story seems to lead up to the "fall" much more than does the first one, thus I would have to deem it the "better" story, even though the first has some healthy offerings of its own in the form of imagery. Also, for anyone interested there is a NOVA program online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/program.html that will allow to watch a show about the "secrets" of the Bible for free.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
So I read some more....And it was good...mostly
I must admit that I am trudging through this, though enjoying it, much slower than it seems my classmates are, but to each his (or her) own. I have now read from genesis 2 - 9. Not exactly a Herculean feat, but a feat nonetheless. My first issue in this reading was that, well, all the stuff I got excited about in the first blog essentially were erased. Adam and Eve? Not equal. Universe made through separation? Nope. Monsters? Not so much. I won't regale any potential readers with my slow tromp through the next few parts of Genesis, but there were a few highlights that got me thinking.
First, there seems to be no mention of the serpent being "Satan," which was something that I had been wholly convinced of when I heard the story before in classes, in films, books etc. Rather, it seems that one of God's creations, apparently one he didn't think to hard about in the creative process, seeing as it was, "more crafty than any other wild animal that the LORD GOD had made" was responsible. Just a "woops" on God's part I suppose. I guess my question here is, why did God make it at all? This seems unclear to me, and I hope some people have some insights. The serpent just kind of 'poof' appears in the garden and starts using his serpent tongue to persuade Eve. Later, Adam and Eve hide from GOD, which, again, seems very unlikely. The GOD in the first part of Genesis seems omnipotent, and yet in the very next part, he's making creates that will undo the paradise He's created, and has no clue where his prize creations are. In essence, my BIG question is how did GOD go from all powerful to almost seemingly clueless in a mater of...four pages?
The question arises again when Cain is punished for the murder of Abel. As a quick side note, however, was Cain sarcastic with GOD? With capital G-O-D? "Then the LORD said to Cain 'Where is your brother Abel?!' He said, "I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?" (italics added). That sounds rather "snarky" to me, which begs to question why God did not smite Cain right then and there. I read more of Genesis, but am rather tired of typing at the moment, and have no idea how formal this is to be, so I'm off to read (and eat ice cream).
First, there seems to be no mention of the serpent being "Satan," which was something that I had been wholly convinced of when I heard the story before in classes, in films, books etc. Rather, it seems that one of God's creations, apparently one he didn't think to hard about in the creative process, seeing as it was, "more crafty than any other wild animal that the LORD GOD had made" was responsible. Just a "woops" on God's part I suppose. I guess my question here is, why did God make it at all? This seems unclear to me, and I hope some people have some insights. The serpent just kind of 'poof' appears in the garden and starts using his serpent tongue to persuade Eve. Later, Adam and Eve hide from GOD, which, again, seems very unlikely. The GOD in the first part of Genesis seems omnipotent, and yet in the very next part, he's making creates that will undo the paradise He's created, and has no clue where his prize creations are. In essence, my BIG question is how did GOD go from all powerful to almost seemingly clueless in a mater of...four pages?
The question arises again when Cain is punished for the murder of Abel. As a quick side note, however, was Cain sarcastic with GOD? With capital G-O-D? "Then the LORD said to Cain 'Where is your brother Abel?!' He said, "I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?" (italics added). That sounds rather "snarky" to me, which begs to question why God did not smite Cain right then and there. I read more of Genesis, but am rather tired of typing at the moment, and have no idea how formal this is to be, so I'm off to read (and eat ice cream).
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
First Readings. "Good Book" Chapter 1 and Genesis 1.1-1.31
There are two things to know about this blog, and my experience with the bible...I have zero. Granted, I have "experienced" the bible in the sense that it permeates almost every aspect of our social discourse, and I've read books that are about or deal with the bible (namely "The Year of Living Biblically" by A.J. Jacobs, and "Lamb: the Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Friend" by Christopher Moore). Beyond that however, my knowledge of the actual words within this important text started at "In" and ended with "the beginning". It seems almost foolish that I haven't read a book that has so much influence on some of my favorite films, books, magazines, friends, family members, political heroes, comedians...right on down the line to the feeling I get that sometimes I'm being watched. My inexperience with the bible is surprising, even to myself. My fathers family are devout catholics (like the kind that actually go to Church) and my mothers family are devout Methodists (again, the kind that actually go to church). I've been to service twice, not counting weddings. Once on Christmas eve when I was very young, and once when my aunt was couching cheer leading and I had the option of watching that or going to church (I was very young on that occasion as well, and did not fully grasp how disappointed I would be many years later that I skipped out on my other option). So, with all that said, I was extremely interested in this courses particular subject matter, because I had never actually cracked open a bible and yet the words contained in it were stretching their fingers into almost every aspect of my life.
Today started my endeavour to read the bible, as well as "Good Book", "Slave" and "The Great Code". While I will most likely not read all of them at the exact same time, I'm going to try (real hard) to at least do pieces in conjunction. This particular afternoon (which bled into the evening) I read the first chapter in "Good Book" and also Genesis 1.1 - 1.31. I did enjoy reading Plotz's personal discoveries, and he had some questions that I think I would have asked myself. However, I was almost jealous of the fact that each of these stories was being treated in one or two paragraphs, jealous because I had barely opened my own bible. I know (because I've been told) that the bible contains a lot of "begots" and "it was good"s, but I felt cheated that I had only read the very first part of Genesis and all the "cool" stuff in the story ahead had been given away. It was like being told I was going to partake in some grand adventure, only to have someone travel back from the future and hand me a cliff notes version of my journey. I was relieved, though, because I discovered that the Bible had a few turns for me as well.
I don't want to go into detail about every single question, thought, or whisper that crept into my cranium while reading, but a few things stuck out to me. Maybe it was that I've never read Genesis, or that I thought I "knew" the story just by way of social osmosis, but I was pleasantly surprised at a few things, which I think live best in list form (not necessarily in order):
1. There are monsters, real monsters, like the ones from the Iliad, in the bible. Holy Dragons (Batman), literally! I had at first been worried about losing interest, but right at the beginning, even though the footnotes tell me that the monsters don't stick around for too long, I've found something new and exciting, for me at least.
2. I know the intro talked about this a bit, but to see the words male and female next to each other, on equal footing (so to speak) was uplifting. This highlights the fact that within in the Bible, and within interpretation of it, canonical or literary, there are landmines everywhere.
3. This was the "big" one for me. The bible presents creation as a "separation" of things. I had always envisioned the Christian God as a kind of artist, sculpting things from raw materials that he made and put together. It makes me wonder a) where did my version of God, as the sculptor, come from? and b) it is ironic that Christian creation is about a separation of things, and the astronomical physicists perspective is that after the Big Bang there was nothing but a vast expanse of helium and hydrogen, that through time came together to form the universe as we see it today. One version a "pulling apart" of matter, the other a squishing of it. I'm not sure if there is anything "important" in literary terms with this last item, but I couldn't stop thinking about it.
Well, that's just about it for today. Or rather, that is it for today. This is probably more than I'll usually write, but then again, who knows. I've never blogged before. Also, I have no idea how to indent on this thing...any ideas?
Today started my endeavour to read the bible, as well as "Good Book", "Slave" and "The Great Code". While I will most likely not read all of them at the exact same time, I'm going to try (real hard) to at least do pieces in conjunction. This particular afternoon (which bled into the evening) I read the first chapter in "Good Book" and also Genesis 1.1 - 1.31. I did enjoy reading Plotz's personal discoveries, and he had some questions that I think I would have asked myself. However, I was almost jealous of the fact that each of these stories was being treated in one or two paragraphs, jealous because I had barely opened my own bible. I know (because I've been told) that the bible contains a lot of "begots" and "it was good"s, but I felt cheated that I had only read the very first part of Genesis and all the "cool" stuff in the story ahead had been given away. It was like being told I was going to partake in some grand adventure, only to have someone travel back from the future and hand me a cliff notes version of my journey. I was relieved, though, because I discovered that the Bible had a few turns for me as well.
I don't want to go into detail about every single question, thought, or whisper that crept into my cranium while reading, but a few things stuck out to me. Maybe it was that I've never read Genesis, or that I thought I "knew" the story just by way of social osmosis, but I was pleasantly surprised at a few things, which I think live best in list form (not necessarily in order):
1. There are monsters, real monsters, like the ones from the Iliad, in the bible. Holy Dragons (Batman), literally! I had at first been worried about losing interest, but right at the beginning, even though the footnotes tell me that the monsters don't stick around for too long, I've found something new and exciting, for me at least.
2. I know the intro talked about this a bit, but to see the words male and female next to each other, on equal footing (so to speak) was uplifting. This highlights the fact that within in the Bible, and within interpretation of it, canonical or literary, there are landmines everywhere.
3. This was the "big" one for me. The bible presents creation as a "separation" of things. I had always envisioned the Christian God as a kind of artist, sculpting things from raw materials that he made and put together. It makes me wonder a) where did my version of God, as the sculptor, come from? and b) it is ironic that Christian creation is about a separation of things, and the astronomical physicists perspective is that after the Big Bang there was nothing but a vast expanse of helium and hydrogen, that through time came together to form the universe as we see it today. One version a "pulling apart" of matter, the other a squishing of it. I'm not sure if there is anything "important" in literary terms with this last item, but I couldn't stop thinking about it.
Well, that's just about it for today. Or rather, that is it for today. This is probably more than I'll usually write, but then again, who knows. I've never blogged before. Also, I have no idea how to indent on this thing...any ideas?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
